Pat's Nuggets

Subject: Suction Dredge Regs. Summary

2011-03-09T17:45:00.000-08:00

Subject: Suction Dredge Regs. Summary

Date: Monday, March 7, 2011 4:21 PM

From: MojaveJoe

Conversation: Suction Dredge Regs. Summary

SUMMARY DFG PROPOSED NEW SUCTION DREDGE REGULATIONS

{{{{{ Section 228 }}}}}

Suction Dredging

(2) A list of up to six locations where the permit applicant plans to suction dredge. Location information shall include either:

(A) County, river or stream or lake name, township, range, section, quarter section, base, and meridian; or

(B) Approximate center point of the location using latitude and longitude.

For each location the California Active Mining Claim number, if applicable, and approximate dates of proposed dredging shall be listed.

(3) A list of all suction dredge equipment that will be used under the permit, including nozzle size, constrictor ring size (if needed), engine manufacturer and model number, and horsepower.

===================

(g) Number of Permits.

The Department shall issue a maximum of 4,000 permits annually, on a first-come, first-serve basis.

====================

(j) Equipment Requirements.

(1) Nozzle Restriction.

No suction dredge having an intake nozzle with an inside diameter larger than four inches may be used unless:

(A The Department has conducted an on-site inspection and approved a larger nozzle size in writing; the maximum inside diameter of the intake nozzle is no larger than six inches, or eight inches where allowable under Section 228, subdivision(j)(1)(E); and

(B) The permittee has a valid suction dredge permit; and

(C) The permittee has in their possession documentation of compliance with Fish and Game Code section 1602, subdivision(a), for the proposed suction dredging

operation, including a copy of his/her notification to the Department; any response to the notification by the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, subdivision(a)(4)(A)(i); and specific authorization from the Department for a vacuum nozzle greater than 4” in diameter if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is required;

(D) A constricting ring with an inside diameter not larger than four inches has been attached to the intake nozzle. This constricting ring must be of solid, one-piece construction with no openings other than the intake and openings not greater than one inch between the constricting ring and nozzle. It must be welded or otherwise permanently attached over the end of the intake nozzle. No quick

release devices are permitted.

(E) Suction dredge intake nozzles up to eight inches in diameter may be permitted at the Department’s discretion in accordance with Section 228 subdivision(j)(1)(A) only on the following rivers:

(1) American (Placer, Nevada, and EI Dorado counties)

(2) Cosumnes (Sacramento, Amador and EI Dorado counties)

(3) Feather (Butte, Plumas, and Yuba counties)

(4) Klamath (Del Norte, Humboldt and Siskiyou counties)

(5) Merced (Mariposa and Merced counties)

(6) Mokelumne (Amador, Calaveras and San Joaquin counties)

(7) Scott (Siskiyou County)

(8) Trinity (Trinity and Humboldt counties); and

(9) Yuba (Sierra and Yuba counties)

(3) Pump Intake Screening.

The intake for the suction dredge 29 pump shall be covered with screening mesh. Screen mesh openings shall not exceed 3/32 inch (2.38 mm) for woven wire or perforated plate screens, or 0.0689 inch (1.75 mm) for profile wire screens, with a minimum 27% open area.

(4) Only the nozzle size(s), constrictor ring(s) and engine model numbers identified in the permit may be used.

(5) The suction dredge permit number must be affixed to all permitted dredges at all times, in a manner such that it is clearly visible from the streambank or shoreline. The number must be displayed in lettering at least three inches in height and maintained in such a condition as to be clearly visible and legible.

====================

(k) Restrictions on Methods of Operation.

(1) Motorized winching or the use of other motorized equipment to move boulders, logs, or other objects is prohibited, unless:

(A)The Department has conducted an on-site inspection and approved the proposed suction dredging operations in writing; and

(B)The permittee has a valid suction dredge permit; and

(C)The permittee has in their possession documentation of compliance with Fish and Game Code section 1602, subdivision (a), for the proposed suction dredging

operations, including a copy of their notification to the Department; any response to the notification by the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, subdivision(a)(4)(A)(i); and specific authorization from the Department for motorized winching if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is required.

(2) Winching, whether motorized or hand powered, must be conducted under the following provisions:

(A) Boulders and other material may only be moved within the current water level. No boulders or other material shall be moved outside the current water level.

(B) Winching of any material embedded on banks of streams or rivers is prohibited. or rivers is prohibited.

(D) Nets and other devices may be used to collect cobbles and boulders by hand for removal from dredge holes providing the materials are not removed from within the current water level.

(3) No person may suction dredge within three feet of the lateral edge of the current water level, including at the edge of instream gravel bars or under any overhanging banks.

(4) No person shall remove or damage streamside vegetation during suction

dredge operations.

(5) No person shall cut, move or destabilize instream woody debris such as root wads, stumps or logs.

(6) No person shall divert the flow of river or stream into the bank.

(7) For the purpose of suction dredge mining subject to this section, no person shall construct a dam or weir, concentrate flow in a way that reduces the total wetted area of a river or stream, or obstruct fish passage; unless:

(A) The Department has conducted an on-site inspection and approved the

proposed suction dredging operations in writing; and

(B)The permittee has a valid suction dredge permit; and

(C)The permittee has in their possession, documentation of compliance with Fish and Game Code section 1602, subdivision (a), for the proposed suction dredging

operations, including a copy of their notification to the Department; any response by the Department to the notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, subdivision (a)(4)(A)(i); and specific authorization for the proposed activity if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is required.

(8) No person shall import any earthen material into a stream, river or lake.

(9) All fueling and servicing of dredging equipment must be done in a manner such that petroleum products and other substances are not leaked, spilled or placed where they may pass into the waters of the state.

(10) No fuel, lubricants or chemicals may be stored within 100 feet of the current

water level. Where this is not feasible, a containment system must be in place beneath the fuel, lubricants or chemicals.

(11) Stream substrate, including gravel, cobble, boulders and other material may

only be moved within the current water level.

(12) No person shall displace any material embedded on banks of rivers or streams.

(13) No person shall disturb any mussel beds. A mussel bed is defined as an area of any size where the density of mussels is 40 or more/square yard. Suction dredging activities, including deposition of tailings, shall not occur within 30 yards upstream of a mussel bed, nor within 10 yards laterally or downstream.

(14) Reasonable care shall be used to avoid dredging silt and clay materials that would result in a significant increase in turbidity.

(15) The permittee shall level all tailing piles, returning the site to the pre-mining grade to the greatest extent possible, prior to finishing use of the excavation site for the suction dredging season, or working another excavation site.

(16) No person shall disturb any redds, actively spawning fish, amphibian egg masses or tadpoles. If encountered while operating a suction dredge, the permittee must cease operations and relocate dredging activities.

(17) The willful entrainment of finfish, mollusks or amphibians is prohibited.

(18) No person shall use wheeled or tracked equipment instream as part of suction dredging.

(19) All suction dredge equipment shall be cleaned of mud, oil, grease, debris, and plant and animal material before use in a river, stream or lake.

==================

(l) State Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves. Consistent with Title 14, Sections 550, subdivision (b)(10), and 630, subdivision (a)(1), of the California Code of Regulations, suction dredging is prohibited in State Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves.

==================

(o) Location of Suction Dredge Operations. No person shall suction dredge in locations other than those identified in the permit application pursuant to subdivision (c).

==================

(p) Timing of Activity. Active suction dredging operations may only be conducted between one half hour after sunrise to sunset.

==================

{{{{{ Section 228.5 }}}}}

Suction Dredge Use Classifications and Special Regulations.

(a) Suction Dredge Use Classifications. For purposes of these regulations, the following classes of suction dredge use restrictions apply in California's lakes, reservoirs, streams and rivers as specified:

(1) Class A: No dredging permitted at anytime.

(2) Class B: Open to dredging from July 1 through August 31.

(3) Class C: Open to dredging from June 1 through September 30.

(4) Class D: Open to dredging from July 1 through January 31.

(5) Class E: Open to dredging from September 1 through January 31.

(6) Class F: Open to dredging from July 1 through September 30.

(7) Class G: Open to dredging from September 1 through September 30.

(8) Class H: Open to dredging throughout the year.

(b) Suction Dredge Special Regulations. The Suction Dredge Use Classifications (Section (a), above) apply for each of the rivers or streams in each of the counties listed below. Lakes and reservoirs statewide are Class H.

>>>>>> The List of River and Stream Classifications is quite lengthy and is not reproduced here to save space. I encourage you to look at the DFG’s original pdf document of the proposed regs for an easy to read chart listed by county.

See pages 18-69.

http://www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27429

From what Ive learned, there are many significant changes to open rivers and streams, open dates, and even restrictions by elevation. Meaning you have probably been affected.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Anyone who wants to print, copy, or reproduce this information for personal use or for posting in another forum has my express permission and is encouraged to do so.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

NOTE- This summary is available to anyone in WORD and/or Rich Text format making it easier to read and use for letter writing. If you would like a copy just e-mail me at mojavejoe AT verizon DOT net

It's all up to you now. Do your part and say you gave it your best, or sit back and cry in your beer and let them steam roll over you.

Comments Regarding: Suction Dredge Permitting Program

2011-03-09T17:43:00.001-08:00

March 24, 2011

California Department of Fish and Game

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Comments Regarding: Suction Dredge Permitting Program

Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

California Department of Fish and Game

February 2011

To Whom It May Concern:

Having reviewed all 897 pages of the above Report and countless other related documents, a lot of time and taxpayer money was spent trying to educate the public and DFG personnel about mining and more specifically about “suction dredging.” Education is never a waste but in this case it may have been. It is apparent from the conclusions cited as “Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts” that analysis of the collected data has been twisted in places into what appears to be self-serving and bias findings. Throughout the Report, there were premature assumptions and faulty analysis of alleged problems because the real answer was not known or the available data would not support the desired conclusion. In such instances, the problem was simply declared “significant and unavoidable.” Despite all these pitfalls, surprisingly, there were parts of the Report itself that make a good argument for why more restrictive dredging regulations were NOT justified. Beginning with the very first paragraph of Section 228 of the DFG proposed regulations related to suction dredging, it states in part, “…the Department finds that suction dredging…will not be deleterious to fish.” Notwithstanding that published conclusion, the DFG proceeds to propose implementation of a prolonged and tedious number of changes affecting the manner in which suction dredging is performed. Even more disconcerting to the financial interest of claims owners, the proposed restrictions on dredging contained in the DSEIR take away “property rights” granted by the Mineral Estate Trust Act of 1866 and the Mining Law of 1872. The taking of such rights is a blatant violation of due process guaranteed by the 5^th amendment as it applies to the Federal Government and to the 14^th amendment as it applies to states. The taking of “property” without just cause or compensation is illegal and will continue to be pursued in lawsuits filed by the Public Lands for the Public and this litigation will continue to be pressed forward regardless of the outcome of these proposed new regulations. Notwithstanding the violations and legal entanglements referenced above, let us address the alleged “Significant and Unavoidable Impacts” referenced in Chapter 6.2.3 of the DSEIR:

Impact WQ-4: Effects of Mercury Resuspension and Discharge from Suction Dredging: This impact details analysis of Hg (Mercury) discharge and transport resulting from both dredging operations and watershed sources such as rainfall and runoff. Nobody disputes that there is mercury present in historic gold mining areas as a result of earlier gold mining efforts. But, as the report indicates, this mercury continues to slough into the river without regard to dredging activity. The report clearly points out on Page 4.2-38 that, “…In contrast to Hg discharged from suction dredging; the majority of HG is from background watershed sources during the winter wet season, when runoff conditions contribute to high flows that scour sediments laden with Hg.” Yes, every winter Mother Nature creates a “significant disturbance” and dredges without a permit. The report further cites a series of mercury samples that were taken once a month in the summer while preparing this Report. The conclusion at the bottom of Page 4.2-38 was that, “…it is possible that suction dredges were contributing to the annual HG load calculated, but Hg levels do not appear to reflect unusually high concentrations during the dry season. Given this, there are inherent uncertainties to the Hg loading estimates.” The Report itself stipulates that there are uncertainties as to the cause of HG loading that is present. So, the conclusion stated clearly in the report is that nobody knows anything for sure about movement of HG in streambeds. Even more indicative of this conclusion, on Page 4.2-40 it is reported that HG particles less than 63 um, “…do not remain suspended during summer low flows and are thus deposited back into the river.” This conclusion is no surprise to dredgers. Even further, on Page 4.2-41 it is finally concluded that, “Transport of elemental Hg that is floured and discharged from suction dredging is largely unknown as floured HG has been observed to float initially but subsequently sink or float until they are dissolved.” Yes, what goes up must come down and nobody knows how much mercury is discharged by suction dredging but the report makes clear that Mother Nature is the biggest contributor. The report also defines the low flow, summer months of dredging as between March and October. Therefore, the question presents itself as to why the proposed regulations are striving to cut short the dredging season for most dredgers to three months between July and September? WQ-4 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact WQ-5: Effects of Resuspension and Discharge of Other Trace Minerals from Suction Dredging: This area details results to determine the impact of other sediments encountered when dredging such as copper, lead, zinc, etc. Again, the conclusions on Page 4.2-58/59 are that dredging has a “negative impact.” It is reported that suction dredging would not be expected to increase levels of trace minerals nor result in substantial, long-term degradation of trace metal conditions that would cause adverse effects. Finally, it is further reported that the potential to mobilize the trace metals would not substantially increase health risks to wildlife. Everything sounds good for dredgers so far. However, then the report begins to speculate. It reaches out in desperation to suggest that, “If” dredging at known metal hot spots actually contained acid mine issues, low pH levels, high sediment, and pore metal concentrations, there “may be” a potentially significant impact. There are too many “ifs” and “maybes” in that assumption. Yet, despite the lack of data or knowledge to accurately identify where such conditions might exist, the report suggests that the “unknown” itself presents a significant and unavoidable impact. This is pointless analysis at its worst. The conclusion imagines that the perfect storm of conditions might exist out there somewhere to affect trace mineral conditions. That’s like saying, “Somewhere in those mountains, there is gold.” Impact WQ-5 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact BIO-WILD-2: Effects on Special-Status Passerines Associated with Riparian Habitat: This impact details the results to determine whether dredging impacts special-status passerine species by altering behavior, movements, and distributions. Passerines were defined as birds that are adapted for perching. This means that they primarily live in the trees. The specific disturbance of reported concern is noise from dredge equipment or encampment activities. This whole discussion is prejudicial against miners without a scintilla of scientific proof to back it up. Further, the report totally ignored any discussion or consideration for the level of noise generated by hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, recreational vehicles, and other outdoor activities. On a scale of noise makers, suction dredgers have to be far and away the minority in number and create the least impact on the environment. This whole argument is a stretch and complete over-reaching by the Report writers. The report attempts to support its weak position by stating that, “even a small disturbance could be substantial.” Where is the scientific data for that conclusion? These are passerine creatures that live in the outdoors and expect noise as well as other disturbances all the time and on a wide range of levels. In addition, on Page 4.3-49 of the report, it suggests an accurate determination of any potential impacts to these special-status passerines must be studied using field surveys by qualified biologist to determine their location using the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other such sources. So, the report is really stating that nobody knows where these alleged passerines live. Well, if the locations of these passerines are important, DFG needs to submit a proposal for funding of research by qualified biologists to pinpoint locations and see what kind of funding support is present. Impact BIO-WILD-2 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact CUL-1: Substantial Adverse Changes, When Considered Statewide, in the Significance of Historical Resources: This impact was to consider how dredging might affect historical and cultural resources. This is yet another example of when we don’t really know anything, let’s just assert that dredging is the cause. How do we know this to be true? On Page 4.5-12, it discusses the potential impact of dredging on historical resources. The Report states, “…Whether this impact would have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource when considered statewide is a function of the likelihood of disturbance of these resources and their individual and/or collective significance. It is unknown whether suction dredge mining would affect significant historical resources to a level that would be considered significant statewide.” In other words, such impact cannot be attributed to dredging. Yet nonetheless, again, the writers of this Report use the same old crutch as used previously and conclude that since an impact cannot supported by scientific data, it will simply be labeled a “potentially significant impact” attributable to dredging. But, further on Page 4.5-13, the report also confesses that the only way to know for sure about the location of any historical resources would be to conduct archival research using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). Well, by all means, let the DFG propose a research team be assembled to conduct this perceived vital research and send it along the aforementioned study on passerines. Clearly, this whole issue is again over zealous staffers trying to make reach a preconceived conclusion when no data exists to support it. Impact CUL-1 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact CUL-2: Substantial Adverse Changes, When Considered Statewide, in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources: This impact was to consider how dredging might affect archaeological resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). This is another case as detailed previously where CFG has put the “cart in front of the horse.” What impact and where are these archaeological resource sites? Well, again, the report clearly describes that nobody knows. Beginning on Page 4.5-14, the Report states, “…Whether this impact would have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource when considered statewide is a function of the likelihood of disturbance to such a resource and its individual and/or collective significance. It is unknown whether suction dredge mining would affect unique archaeological resources to a level that would be considered significant statewide.” The report goes on further to suggest that the only way to know if there are unique archaeological sites, one would need to perform archival research using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). Well, this sounds like another budget proposal that DFG would need to submit for fundins. The fact is that if this allegation were true and verifiable, the DFG or some environmental group would have already performed this research and published the information. Impact CUL-2 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact NZ-1: Exposure of the Public to Noise Levels in Excess of City or County Standards: This impact considers whether operating dredge equipment exceeds noise standards. If this entire study were not so serious in its potential impact to miners, this particular impact would be laughable for lack of support and scientific merit. First of all, where are the noise level standards that apply to conditions, equipment, and animals found in Mother Nature? Does a mountain lion, wolf, or moose violate this unknown standard when they sound a mating call? The fact is that this particular impact is another “pie in the sky” effort to dream up problems and blame the problem on dredging. However, again, the Report tells us what we need to know. The report states that while dredging has the potential to generate excess noise, the existing regulations do not authorize permit holders to use their equipment in a manner that violates existing noise standards. Further, on Page 4.7-9, the Report states, “…all recreationist…are equally required to abide by local noise ordinances. Violations can be reported at any time to local authorities who have the jurisdiction to enforce applicable regulations as appropriate.” Nonetheless, absent any concrete data to support that dredgers violate recognized noise standards, the writers of this report use the same approach as in other situations where they lack scientific data. The Report writers declare the impact to be “significant and unavoidable” out of nothingness. This is a outrageous conclusion and unfounded. Consequently, Impact NZ-1 should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact CUM-2: Effects on Wildlife Species and Their Habitats: This impact considers the extent dredging operations could have on non-riverine aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Amazingly, the Report finds that dredging does not have any considerable cumulative impact on any of these creatures and declares a finding of “less than significant” in these cases. However, in the case of several bird species, the report expresses a concern with the so called “incremental effects” of the proposed program. This is puzzling since on Page 5-23 of the report, it states that, “Similar to fish species, declines in non-Fish species populations are largely due to long-term degradation of environmental conditions. With few exceptions, the declines in the population of a non-fish species are the result of the synergistic effects of anthropogenic activities, and not a single causative agent or project.” The word “anthropogenic” means “caused by humans.” So the Report is already saying that it’s not “dredging” per se that impacts non-fish or bird species but a lot of “unknown” human factors. The Report acknowledges that there are other influencing factors besides dredgers affecting the environment. And, let’s not forget that “dredgers” are in the water and birds are in the trees. Yet, this report contends that out of all the other thousands of bird, plant, and non-fish species discussed in the report, the eight non-fish species listed on Table 4.3-3 are in danger to dredging operations. This is like pulling out the mythical “needle from the haystack.” It is the position of miners that these eight species are no less impacted or at risk than the hundreds of other species determined in the Report to be “less than significant.” This impact is not based upon any scientific proof but mere conjecture. Consequently, impact CUM-2 is unfounded and should be corrected to read “less than significant.”

Impact CUM-6: Turbidity/TSS Discharge from Suction Dredging: This impact considers alleged turbidity impairments from dredge discharges impacting fish. It is a shame that the writers of this report have not actually dredged themselves or they would know firsthand the ridiculous nature of this argument. Fish surround dredgers when they are dredging because they know that food is on the menu again. Yet the false premise that turbidity from dredge discharges hurt fish has spawned into an argument for closing or restricting dredging operations. Reference is made again to the Report itself in Section 228 of the DFG Proposed Amendments to the Regulations related to suction dredging where it makes the bold statement that, “…the Department finds that suction dredging…will not be deleterious to fish.” Further on Page 5-28, the Report references past, present, and future turbidity sources of turbidity which include: agriculture, aquaculture, effluent pollution, recreation, urbanization, timber harvest, and wildfire, fire suppression, and fuels management. In essence, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of turbidity touted in the Report has many causes and the least of which is from dredging. This impact is overstated and embellished to serve its masters rather than speak the truth. Impact CUM-3 is unfounded and should be corrected to read “less than significant.”

Impact CUM-7: Cumulative Impacts of Mercury Resuspension and Discharge from Suction Dredging: This impact considers how dredging affects existing concentrations of Mercury present in the sediments of historic gold-mining and gold bearing regions. There is no getting around that Mercury was left behind by historic miners and mining operations. However, as previously discussed under in Impact WQ-4 and detailed on Page 4.2-8 of this Report, “the transport of elemental Hg that is floured and discharged from suction dredging is largely unknown but floured HG floats initially and will subsequently sink or float until they are dissolved.” Now the Report suddenly mentions a new mysterious field study conducted by USGS scientists in the Yuba River system. First, who are these alleged “scientists and Hg experts” and what are their qualifications? Quite candidly, this new field study just seems too obvious and convenient. It is also too premature to be accepted as reliable data. On Page 4.2-19 of this Report, it clearly states that the information provided by these unknown experts was “preliminary results.” In other words, this study (if it is one) has not undergone any peer review or been validated. And validation is necessary since the USGS chose a location where Humbug Creek meets the confluence of the South Yuba River. This is a prejudicial site for any representative field test since this is the location of the Malakoff Diggins where heavy hydraulic mining occurred and is not likely to result in data that can be repeated in other field research. Point in fact, on Page 4.2-23 of the Report, it states, “…The South Yuba river watershed experienced the most intensive level of hydraulic mining, in which mercury-contaminated hydraulic mining debris was produced, and discharged in the watershed. Reasonably, this is not a scientifically representative location from which to extrapolate a conclusion about effects of mercury Resuspension. This explains why on Page 4.2-54 of the Report, it concludes, “…because not all locations of elemental mercury deposits are known, the feasibility with which sites containing mercury could be identified at a level of certainty that is sufficient to develop appropriate closure areas or other restrictions for allowable dredging activities, is uncertain at this time.” Further on the same page, the Report states, “…a comprehensive set of actions to mitigate the potential impact through avoidance or minimization of mercury discharges has not been determined at this time, nor is its likely effectiveness known.” So, we don’t know exactly where all this mercury resides and, even if we did, the effectiveness of trying to mitigate impact is unlikely. And finally, on Page 4.2-36 of the Report, it states, “…modern equipment may result in less flouring” when discussing the impact of mercury. So, the data used to support this impact is based upon inconclusive field results and the whole problem itself may be admittedly an insolvable one. But we do know that material disturbed in any waterway will find its way to the bottom and Mother Nature does more to disrupt Mercury sediments that any dredger ever could. Impact CUM-7 is unfounded and should be corrected to read “less than significant.”

Somewhere between the “1994 Regulations Alternative” and the “Reduced Intensity Alternative” there exists an alternative that would allow CFG to continue to do its job as well as allow miners greater access their claims. But, only data that can be scientifically supported should be considered. Meanwhile, dredging should not be restricted or prohibited in those areas and during those times of the year when dredging would not pose problem to the environment. All miners are open to some better dredging practices but dredgers should not be scapegoats.

BILL NUMBER: SB 657 INTRODUCED

2011-03-09T17:40:00.000-08:00

BILL NUMBER: SB 657 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Senator Gaines

FEBRUARY 18, 2011

An act to add Section 5653.2 to, and to repeal and add Section

5653.1 of, the Fish and Game Code, relating to fish and wildlife, and

declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

SB 657, as introduced, Gaines. Vacuum or suction dredge equipment.

The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency,

as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and

certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a

project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that

may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a

negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that

effect. The act exempts from its provisions, among other things,

certain types of ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or

approved by public agencies, and emergency repairs to public service

facilities necessary to maintain service.

Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge

equipment by any person in any river, stream, or lake of this state

without a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game. Existing

law designates the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction

dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental

Quality Act, and suspends the issuance of permits, and mining

pursuant to a permit, until the department has completed an

environmental impact report for the project as ordered by the court

in a specified court action. Existing law prohibits the use of any

vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake, for

instream mining purposes, until the director of the department

certifies to the Secretary of State that (1) the department has

completed the environmental review of its existing vacuum or suction

dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (2) the

department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a

certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (3) the new

regulations are operative.

This bill would repeal the prohibition on the use of vacuum or

suction dredge equipment, and would exempt the issuance of permits to

operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment from the California

Environmental Quality Act until January 1, 2014. The bill would

require the department to refund a specified portion of the permit

fee paid by a person issued a vacuum or suction dredge equipment

permit and subject to the prohibition on the use of vacuum or suction

dredge equipment. The bill would require the department, on or

before January 1, 2014, to complete an economic impact report on the

prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge equipment.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as

an urgency statute.

Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 5653.1 of the Fish and Game Code is repealed.

5653.1. (a) The issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction

dredge equipment is a project pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section

21000) of the Public Resources Code) and permits may only be issued,

and vacuum or suction dredge mining may only occur as authorized by

any existing permit, if the department has caused to be prepared, and

certified the completion of, an environmental impact report for the

project pursuant to the court order and consent judgment entered in

the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California Department

of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG

05211597.

(b) Notwithstanding Section 5653, the use of any vacuum or suction

dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake of this state is

prohibited until the director certifies to the Secretary of State

that all of the following have occurred:

(1) The department has completed the environmental review of its

existing suction dredge mining regulations, as ordered by the court

in the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California

Department of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court

Case No. RG 05211597.

(2) The department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary

of State pursuant to Section 11343 of the Government Code, a

certified copy of new regulations adopted, as necessary, pursuant to

Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3

of Title 2 of the Government Code.

(3) The new regulations described in paragraph (2) are operative.

during the 2009-10 Regular Session, applies solely to vacuum and

suction dredging activities conducted for instream mining purposes.

This section does not expand or provide new authority for the

department to close or regulate suction dredging conducted for

regular maintenance of energy or water supply management

infrastructure, flood control, or navigational purposes governed by

other state or federal law.

(d) This section does not prohibit or restrict nonmotorized

recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

SEC. 2. Section 5653.1 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to

read:

5653.1. (a) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13

(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does

not apply to the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction

dredge equipment pursuant to Section 5653.

(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,

2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted

statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends

that date.

SEC. 3. Section 5653.2 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to

read:

5653.2. (a) The department shall refund a portion of the permit

fee paid by a person issued a permit for the use of vacuum or suction

dredge equipment pursuant to Section 5653 and subject to the

prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge equipment imposed

by Section 5653.1, as that section read on August 6, 2009. The

amount of any refund issued pursuant to this subdivision shall be

prorated to refund the portion of the permit fee that is attributable

to the period for which the permit was issued and for which the

permittee could not use vacuum or suction dredge equipment as a

result of the prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge

equipment.

(b) On or before January 1, 2014, the department shall complete a

report on the economic impacts of the prohibition on the use of

vacuum and suction dredge equipment imposed by Section 5653.1, as

that section read on August 6, 2009.

SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate

preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the

meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate

effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to address, at the earliest time possible, the financial

hardship caused by the moratorium on vacuum and suction dredging to

those who depend on vacuum and suction dredging for their livelihood,

it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

2009-09-19T10:37:00.001-07:00

PUBLIC LANDS FOR THE PEOPLE, INC.

A 501[C](3) NONPROFIT CORPORATION

# 95-4521318 & 1880483

PLP2.ORG

ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY P.L.P FOR OUR MANY FRIENDS (2009)

ON MONDAY SEPTEMBER 14 WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR PROHIBITING SUCTION DREDGE MINING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA!

THE MOST RECENT ACTIVITY HAS BEEN HOBBS NEW PARTY STATUS AND INTERVENTION IN THE KARUK VS. THE CALIF. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEW 49ERS. HOBBS AND PLP ATTORNEY DAVID YOUNG ARE IN A NEW LAWSUIT, OUTSIDE THE KARUK VS. DFG CASE, AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF FISH & GAME FOR CEQA AND APA VIOLATIONS IN THE PROMULGATING OF NEW SUCTION DREDGE REGULATIONS FOR LATE 2005 & 2009. PLP & HOBBS HAVE INERVENED IN THE HILLMAN KARUK TAXPAYER LAWSUIT AND THE INJUNCTION ON THE SAME CASE. PLP AND HOBBS HAVE NOW FILED AN APPEAL IN THE HILLMAN KARUK INJUNCTION AND PLP, HOBBS AND SEVERAL PLP MEMBERS ARE FILING A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AND INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S SB 670 NO SUCTION DREDGING LAW.

PLP, HOBBS AND OTHER PLAINTIFFS HAVE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE EL DORADO NATIONAL FOREST ON THEIR TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ROAD CLOSURES. THE FIRST HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 2009. WE WILL KEEP YOU UPDATED.

PLP ATTORNEY DAVID YOUNG & JERRY HOBBS HAS ANNOUNCED A SIGNED SETTLEMENT IN THE DEE STAPP VS. BLM DEPT. OF INTERIOR ON THE BLM 43 CFR 3809 MINING REGULATIONS. WE PREVAILED.

PLP IS WAITING IN THE WINGS TO SEE WHAT THE USFS IS PLANNING TO DO WITH THE FINAL RULE THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY USING TO REGULATE MINING AT THIS TIME!

THE SISKIYOU EDUCATION PROJECT (SREP) WAS INTERVENED IN BY JERRY HOBBS AND PLP ATTORNEY DAVID YOUNG AND A CONSOLIDATED CASE BY ROBERT AND LISA BARTON, WALDO MINING DISTRICT AND HAS RECEIVED A RECOMMENDED RULING FROM THE MAGISTRATE COURT TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN FAVOR OF THE MINERS. THE DISTRICT COURT HAS UPHELD THE MAGISTRATES RECOMMENDATION! THE CASE HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN OUR FAVOR! SREP APPEALED ALL THE WAY TO THE 9^TH CIRCUIT COURT AND THE MINERS PREVAILED AT THA LEVEL.

PLP HAS ASSISTED IN CASES THAT HAVE HELPED THE SMALL MINING COMMUNITY: THE USFS VS. LEX WAGGENER, US vs. ENO, USFS VS. MCCLURE AND CONTINUING TO ASSIST THE OREGON MINERS WITH THEIR DEQ CHALLENGES AND THE WASHINGTON MINERS IN THEIR ISSUES WITH THE GOLD AND FISH BOOK.

PLP WORKRD WITH GALE NORTON & THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT TO GET SMALL SCALE MINING RECOGNITION AT THE HIGHER LEVEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. THIS DIDN’T WORK OUT!

PLP AND/OR HOBBS AND STAPP HAVE INTERVENED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES AND WE ARE STILL ACTIVE IN SOME OF THEM: THE SISKIYOU REGIONAL EDUCATION PROJECT VS. USFS; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY VS. USFS; CENTER FOR BIODIVERSITY VS. THE BLM; STAPP VS. BLM ON THE BLM 43 CFR 3809 MINING REGULATIONS. A SETTLEMENT IN THE STAPP VS. BLM HAS BEEN REACHED.

PLP AND ITS MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTED ON THE FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS: THE EASTERN MOJAVE PLAN; THE WEST MOJAVE PLAN; THE SIERRA NEVADA FRAMEWORK; THE ESA PLANS ON LISTING THE CALIFORNIA MILK VETCH; THE LISTING OF THE ARROYO TOAD AND THE SANTA ANA SUCKER. WASHINGTON MINERS AND THE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE, U.S. FOREST SERVICE 36 CFR 261’S, U.S. FOREST SERVICE 228 MINING REGULATION AND ARE NOW WORKING ON COMMENTS FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME SUCTION DREDGING REGULATIONS FOR 2009.

PLP HAS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN A CHALLENGE WITH: THE AZUSA CANYON OFF ROAD ASSOCIATION IN THEIR FIGHT TO KEEP THE OFF ROAD AREA OPEN IN SANTA ANA SUCKER HABITAT; PLP HAS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN ASSISTING THE SUMMER HOME PERMITTEE PROBLEMS WITH THE USFS IN KEEPING THEIR CABINS AND REBUILDING THEM IN, THE LOS PADRES, ANGELES AND CLEVELAND NATIONAL FORESTS.

PLP IS INVESTIGATING SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR SUMMER HOME OWNERS AND CALIFORNIA SUCTION DREDGING; THE RECENT CLOSING OF SIX MILES OF THE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL (ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST); WE ARE STILL FIGHTING TO RE-OPEN PIRU CREEK IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST; LITTLEROCK RESERVOIR CLOSURE TO ALL OFF ROAD VEHICLES USERS AND VARIOUS OTHER CLOSURES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

PLP IS IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION BY PHONE & LETTERS WITH THE PEOPLE FROM ACROSS THE UNITED STATES THAT HAVE PROBLEMS WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, HELPING THEM TO RESOLVE ISSUES IN THEIR PART OF THE COUNTRY. THIS COMMUNICATION HELPS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE ON THEIR RIGHTS AND THE LAWS THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE GOVERNED UNDER. THIS IS ONE OF THE METHODS THAT WE USE TO EDUCATE AND UNITE IN A COMMON CAUSE

DAVID YOUNG IS THE ATTORNEY FOR P.L.P. AND IS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST ALL OUR MEMBERS

COME TO A MEETING AND GET INFORMED!

OUR WEB PAGE IS: WWW. PLP2.ORG

PLP BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS ARE HELD ON THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF EACH MONTH AT MEMORIAL PARK IN AZUSA, CA. AT 7 P.M. INFORMATION 818-957-1455

GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS ARE HELD IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY ON THE

3^RD THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH AT KEENE ENGINEERING IN CHATSWORTH, CA., 7 P.M.

INFORMATION 818-993-0411

PLEASE MAKE A DONATION TO THE PLP LEGAL RESEARCH FUND

PLP

% B.H. WETHERBY

3700 SANTA CARLOTTA ST/

LA CRESCENTA, CA. 91214-1048

CALIFORNIA LAW ILLEGAL

2009-09-19T10:29:00.000-07:00

Public Lands for the People Inc. Press Release

September 17, 2009

Contact: Jerry Hobbs, President,
Public Lands for the People Inc, 909-889-3039

CALIFORNIA LAW ILLEGAL

PLP’s Lawsuit Charges California With Violating Federal Law & Harming The Economy.

Sacramento, Ca. Sept. 14^th, 2009.– Public Lands for the People Inc.(PLP) filed a lawsuit against the State of California. The lawsuit charges that SB670 when signed into law illegally prevents motorized mining; including vacuum and suction dredge mining, in California. The law, which contains an urgency clause, went into effect immediately.

The PLP filed their complaint in Sacramento, Ca at the Eastern District of the federal court. The lawsuit follows several failed attempts to stop suction dredge mining including a federal lawsuit, 2 state lawsuits, and 3 legislative attempts prior to the passage of SB 670.

PLP’s position in the lawsuit is based on “Every US citizen or legal resident has the right to choose to actively engage in mining, which stems from the 1866 and 1872 mining law, a grant of the United States Congress (codified at 30 U.S.C. sections 21-54).” said Jerry Hobbs, president of PLP. “Any unnecessary or unreasonable restriction or prohibition in the acquisition of those minerals on legitimate mining claims would constitute a “taking”. As of August 6, 2009 section 5653.1 of the California Fish & Game Code, prohibits vacuum or suction dredge mining and this action by the State of California does constitute a “taking of real property” under that grant. Redaction of those rights cannot be perpetrated by the State of California, without an act of Congress.”

A request by the governor’s staff for a report on the claims made by the miners that the bill would cause economic harm was submitted with substantiation in excess of $65 million a year harm to the economy of California. Scott Harn of the International California Mining Journal (ICMJ) was a participant in this study, and according to Scott “…the results presented to the governor's staff were rock solid. The proven contribution of suction dredgers to the economy of California amounted to $65.47 million per year. When additional estimated economic contributions were included for items such as commercial retail rents, payroll taxes and property taxes, the economic harm to California was approaching $100 million.” Despite this evidence, Governor Schwarzenegger still signed SB 670.”

Sen. Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) introduced SB 670 earlier this year and it overwhelmingly passed the Senate and Assembly. A few weeks prior to the ban, several co-plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction to block the DFG from issuing any further suction dredge permits. This injunction is still in effect, however the new law prohibits all suction dredge mining including those that have already been permitted by the DFG.

Hobbs states that “Mining claims are real property, the minerals are owned by the mining claimants and are property in the truest sense. SB 670 creates a taking of property that is protected under the 5^th amendment of the Constitution. The mining laws of 1866 and 1872 are grants and statutory rights to all citizens, or those who intend to become citizens, thus SB 670 creates a hollow promise to that grant. It would be refreshing to see the Ca. Legislators and the Governor uphold their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution as it is written; instead they ignore their oath and the rights of those who elected them to office. By doing this they further destroy the economy of the state of Ca., economies of the local community’s, and tourism that rely on the mining community for their survival. This type of disrespect from our elected legislators begs to question, who’s rights are next?”

Although the Ca. DFG did address the concerns of Coho Salmon in their 1994 EIR and implemented those concerns in the regulations at that time, the struggle to eliminate suction dredging gained new steam in 1997 when Coho Salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The DFG did not perform a new EIR to produce new additional suction dredge regulations so, in 2005, the Karuk Tribe etal of California sued the DFG to implement the required EIR and regulations.

The DFG did not agree to complete the partial EIR for the Klamath River watershed in the Karuk’s ancestral territory but instead insisted that the EIR was required for the whole state. However, a PLP intervened and forced the DFG to undertake a formal rule making process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The DFG did not complete the rule making process ordered by the Alameda County Court by June 2008 and in early 2009 the Karuk Tribe requested an emergency closure of the Klamath River to suction dredge mining due to declining fish populations. The Klamath River Basin is in the upper 7.5% of CA., yet all of the state is subject to this illegal action.

In March 2009, a coalition of conservation groups and the Karuk Tribe filed a lawsuit to block the DFG from further issuing of suction dredge permits. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch issued a preliminary injunction in July 2009, ordering the DFG to stop issuing permits. After one federal lawsuit, 2 state lawsuits and 3 legislative attempts SB 670 was finally passed stopping suction dredge mining.

Governmental reports on the decline of the Salmon have never mentioned suction dredge mining as any factor at all. The US Fish and Wildlife identified several reasons for Salmon declines as over-fishing, logging, the Trinity River diversion, irrigation diversions, the 1964 flood, the 1976 - 77 drought, an unidentified tragedy in 2002 which killed a majority of the salmon population on the Klamath River. sea lion predation, brown trout predation, access for salmon beyond dams. Other studies also name main stem and tributary flows, forestry practices and road building/maintenance activities, and fish disease.

Suction dredging is done in a river or stream using a, lawn mower sized engine -powering a suction hose into a sluice box. The miner vacuums up the river gravel that runs through a sluice box to separate out gold flakes. The sediment is then returned to the river a few feet from the location where it was removed.

Suction dredging represents revitalization of the river gravels for the fresh deposit of fish eggs each year. Dredging removes lead, mercury, and trash from other activities that affect the health of fish and humans.

Jerry Hobbs can be reached at 909-889-3039 or emailed at jerhobbs2@verizon.net

HERE IS WHAT WE ARE DOING TO FIGHT FOR DREDGING

2009-08-25T09:15:00.000-07:00

PUBLIC LANDS FOR THE PEOPLE, INC.

A 501[C](3) NONPROFIT CORPORATION

# 95-4521318 & 1880483

PLP2.ORG

ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY P.L.P FOR OUR MANY FRIENDS (2009)

PLP, HOBBS AND OTHER PLAINTIFFS HAVE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE EL DORADO NATIONAL FOREST ON THEIR TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ROAD CLOSURES. THE FIRST HEARING IS ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2009. WE WILL KEEP YOU UPDATED.

DAVID YOUNG WAS RETAINED TO REPRESENT JERRY HOBBS FOR INTERVENTION IN THE KARUK TRIBE VS. CALIFORNIA DFG. THIS CASE IS BOTH A CEQA & APA CASE FOR FRAUDULENTLY PROMULGATING SUCTION DREDGE REGULATIONS FOR THE 2006 SEASON IN THE KLAMATH, SCOTT & SALMON RIVERS AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES.

PLP ATTORNEY DAVID YOUNG & JERRY HOBBS HAVE ANNOUNCED A SIGNED SETTLEMENT IN THE DEE STAPP VS. BLM DEPT. OF INTERIOR ON THE BLM 43 CFR 3809 MINING REGULATIONS. WE PREVAILED.

PLP IS WAITING IN THE WINGS TO SEE WHAT THE USFS IS PLANNING TO DO WITH THE FINAL RULE THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY USING TO REGULATE MINING AT THIS TIME!

PLP HAS ASSISTED IN CASES THAT HAVE HELPED THE SMALL MINING COMMUNITY: THE USFS VS. LEX WAGGENER, US VS.. ENO, USFS VS. MCCLURE AND CONTINUING TO ASSIST THE OREGON MINERS WITH THEIR DEQ CHALLENGES AND THE WASHINGTON MINERS IN THEIR ISSUES WITH THE GOLD AND FISH BOOK.

PLP AND ITS MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTED ON THE FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS: THE EASTERN MOJAVE PLAN; THE WEST MOJAVE PLAN; THE SIERRA NEVADA FRAMEWORK; THE ESA PLANS ON LISTING THE CALIFORNIA MILK VETCH; THE LISTING OF THE ARROYO TOAD AND THE SANTA ANA SUCKER. WASHINGTON MINERS AND THE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE, U.S. FOREST SERVICE 36 CFR 261’S, U.S. FOREST SERVICE 228 MINING REGULATION AD ARE NOW WORKING ON COMMENTS FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME SUCTION DREDGING REGULATIONS FOR 2009.

THE MOST RECENT ACTIVITY HAS BEEN HOBBS NEW PARTY STATUS AND INTERVENTION IN THE KARUK VS. THE CALIF. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEW 49ERS. HOBBS AND PLP ATTORNEY DAVID YOUNG ARE IN A NEW LAWSUIT, OUTSIDE THE KARUK VS. DFG CASE, AGAINST THE CALIF. DEPT. OF FISH & GAME FOR CEQA AND APA VIOLATIONS IN THE PROMULGATING OF NEW SUCTION DREDGE REGULATIONS FOR LATE 2005 & 2009. PLP & HOBBS HAVE INERVENED IN THE HILLMAN KARUK TAXPAYER LAWSUIT AND THE INJUNCTION ON THE SAME CASE. PLP AND HOBBS HAVE NOW FILED AN APPEAL IN THE HILLMAN KARUK INJUNCTION AND PLP, HOBBS AND SEVERAL PLP MEMBERS ARE FILING A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AND INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S SB 670 NO SUCTION DREDGING LAW.

DAVID YOUNG IS THE ATTORNEY FOR P.L.P. AND IS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST ALL OUR MEMBERS

COME TO A MEETING AND GET INFORMED!

OUR WEB PAGE IS: WWW. PLP2.ORG

PLP BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS ARE HELD ON THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF EACH MONTH AT MEMORIAL PARK IN AZUSA, CA. AT 7 P.M. INFORMATION 818-957-1455

GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS ARE HELD IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY ON THE

3^RD THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH AT KEENE ENGINEERING IN CHATSWORTH, CA., 7 P.M.

INFORMATION 818-993-0411

PLEASE MAKE A DONATION TO THE PLP LEGAL RESEARCH FUND

PLP

% B.H. WETHERBY

3700 SANTA CARLOTTA ST.

LA CRESCENTA, CA.91214-1048

2009-08-24T17:28:00.000-07:00

KEENE ENGINEERING COMPANY INC.

20201 Bahama Street, Chatsworth, California 91311 U.S.A.Tel. (818)-993-0411 Fax. (818)-993-0447

E-mail: pat@keeneeng.com Web site: www.keeneeng.com

June 29, 2009

Economic Effect

Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, Ca. 95814

Re:Veto SB-670

Dear Governor Arnold Swarzenegger,

My name is Patrick Keene and I am part of a 3rd. generation family owned business that has been serving the mining community for the past 60 years.

I would like to give you a small business owners point of view on how SB-670 would directly affect Keene Engineering and the 325 plus small businesses in the state of California, which serve the prospectors and suction dredge mining community.

Forty percent of our business relies on California, small and medium scale suction dredge miners and people who travel from other states to dredge in rivers and streams of California and thousands who enjoy tourism here in our Golden State. Dredgers are regulated out of the rivers during spawning seasons

SB-670 is a prohibition and will cause economic harm to our industry to the tune of 60 million dollars a year and will add further injury to our current economic situation in California. Not only our industry would be in danger of collapse, but many other different types of businesses as well. SB-670 will put us out of business and we employ 35 workers.

The suction dredge community supports many other businesses in gold bearing areas which would be in danger of failure as well. Many jobs would in all probability be lost if SB-670 passes. Since, most of these following businesses are seasonal, such as campgrounds, hotels, restaurants, service stations, grocery stores and are located in economically depressed areas, business owners rely on things such as small-scale suction dredgers, prospectors and their tourism. Many of the counties in the Northern California are in economic hard times as we speak, and passing SB-670 would greatly add to their economic suffering eliminating jobs and less tax money for California.

Californians and people who come from other states, visit California and spend an average of 3,200.00 per month in local economies. People purchase special vehicles such as; trucks, campers, trailers, quads and r.v.’s to reach their destiny to prospect and mine for gold in the Golden State.

I have contacted the County Assessors office in 6 of 56 counties in California and have found that the value of mining claims is in these counties alone are valued over 1.7 billion dollars of which at least 1.7 Million is generated for county taxes every year.

Those in favor of SB-670, such as the Karuk Indian Tribe, Sierra Cub, Along with other Indian gaming tribes and certain extreme environmental groups want to see an end to mining and are expounding upon the potential damages of suction dredge mining and the minimizing the possessory rights that are attached to mining claims and their owners.

Please allow the Environmental Impact Report to determine the impact, if any, before allowing SB-670 to shutdown an industry which will cost California’s tax base and violate a congressionally protected property rights.

The original litigation from the Karuk Tribe against the Department of Fish and Game and suction dredging, as well as Governor Schwarzenegger, determined that suction dredging should continue under the old regulations until the Department of Fish and Game has an opportunity to complete a new Environmental Impact Report, and promulgate new suction dredging regulations.

Therefore, we ask you to please Veto SB-670

Remember, all wealth comes from the earth, if it is not mined it must be grown.

Sincerely,

Patrick Keene

Keene Engineering

Truths about Dredging and effects on Fish Habitat

2009-08-20T13:14:00.000-07:00

August 20, 2009

The Honorable Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Fax: 916-558-3160

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

PLEASE VETO BILL SB670 (anti-suction dredging legislation)

My name is Claudia Wise; I retired in 2006 after 32 years of civil service with the U.S. EPA as a physical scientist/chemist. I have been a member of many scientific projects over the years starting my federal career in the Fish Toxicology arena and ending it with the Salmon Restoration division. I have worked on projects ranging from urban fish populations and fish avoidance testing to eelgrass habitat and global climate change. I have been and remain to be a strong proponent of protecting the environment.

On October 11, 2007 in regards to AB 1032 I wrote to you regarding another attempt by the legislature to get around a court order and unnecessarily put a large group of miners and businesses out of work with no scientific evidence to support their claims.

Dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles some commissioned by the USEPA, USGS, CDFG, Corp of Engineers, and many more from universities support suction dredging as having de minimis effects or no significant effect on the environment they are used in. Nothing has changed in peer-reviewed literature since that time to change this fact.

Suction dredge mining has little impact on the areas fish and biota. In relation to natural occurrences suction dredge mining is insignificant. To put the impact of suction dredge mining into perspective it was calculated that suction dredge mining disturbs only 0.7% of the sediment that is moved naturally in a year. The Siskiyou National Forest (SNF), where this study occurred, is a very prominent mining area in California.

According to the U. S. Forest Service, SNF, "There are 1,092,302 acres on the Siskiyou National Forest. Using a factor of 0.33 cubic yards per acre per year times 1,092,302 acres will produce a very conservative estimate that 331,000 cubic yards of material move each year from natural causes compared to the 2413 cubic yards that was moved by suction dredge mining operations in 1995. This would be a movement rate by suction dredge mining that equals about 0.7% of natural rates." (Cooley 1995).

California Department of Fish and Game already regulates the miners out of the waterways during important life events for the Salmon. That includes during spawning season when redds are present.

It is well known that suction dredging causes little or no environmental harm to fish and biota what many overlook are the many benefits that dredging provides such as increased spawning gravels, dredge made refugia, and yes, mercury remediation to name a few.

Suction dredging breaks up cemented riverbeds providing fish with loose gravel for future spawning grounds in areas fish presently are not able to use for spawning. Between 1996 and 1998, Quihillalt (1999) found 4% of redds where located on or within 1000 m of dredge tailings. He theorized that dredge tailings may be attractive sites for redd construction because tailings are often located near riffle crests where fish frequently spawn, and they provide loose, appropriately sized substrate. However, embryos in tailings may suffer high mortality during years of high river flows (1998) and be of no concern during years of low river flows (1996 & 1997).

During a later survey on the Klamath River during 2002 only one redd was observed on suction dredge tailings. Recreational suction dredge mining was present throughout the survey from the Highway I-5 Bridge to Happy Camp (Schuyler and Magneson. 2006).

Even with scouring effects to redds reported in scientific literature this gravel provides areas to spawn that would not otherwise be available to them. Any added benefit to increasing salmon productivity, using suction dredging, is a benefit to fish numbers. Even during years of high mortality due to high flow events if only a few of the embryos survive that may be more than would be expected without the benefit of added spawning gravels provide by the tailings.

I have been involved in temperature surveys on the Klamath River in California in regards to suction dredge activity and existing conditions of refugia. We have found natural refugia to be no better in many cases to that of dredge made refugia.

Dredge holes can provide a holding place for fish as they pass up the waterway on their migration path to and from the ocean providing a place to get out of the faster currents to rest. Some of these dredge holes may also be cooler due to ground water seepage if the holes are deep enough. This leads to development of additional areas of needed refugia.

Another Benefit the suction dredge community could provide the state with is mercury remediation. In talking with miners, the majority typically do not run into large pools or hot spots of mercury. However, their concerns for the environment is the same as other citizens. Miners have shown the willingness to hand over collected mercury to a collection facility if such a facility exists. The California State Water Board’s Water Quality Division report (Humphreys, 2005) suggested the idea of paying the miner’s for their efforts would help facilitate this plan. Collection facilities have been provided in the past with great response.

The California Water Board has spent a lot of time and money on mercury remediation projects with limited success, though in 2001 EPA Region 9 located in San Francisco, California did collect mercury from miners very effectively. Collections of mercury has been happening in Oregon and Washington through the states respective Division’s of Ecology and with even greater success at miner’s rallies.

Even though EPA Region 9 has ended this program and removed it's existence from the website EPA, Region 9 had a mercury "milk run" in 2000. Agency personnel were able to collect 230 pounds of mercury from miners and local dentists. The total amount of mercury collected was equivalent to the mercury load in 47 years worth of wastewater discharge from the city of Sacramento's sewage treatment plant or the mercury in a million mercury thermometers. (US EPA, 2001.)

Over the past four years, the Resources Coalition and other small-scale miners associations in Washington have turned in 127 pounds of mercury and eight pounds of lead for safe disposal with the help from the Washington Department of Ecology. Ecology staff attended miners' rallies in Oroville and Monroe, explaining the state's program for proper disposal of lead and mercury. (ENS 2007).

The mining community of today is, in my opinion, the only group that is in a position with the technology to help with the removal of lead and mercury at a very economical price to the public. Any residual mercury remaining after dredging is that much less to worry about residing in our Nations waterways.

In reviewing Humphrey's (2005) comments regarding possible problems associated with collecting mercury via suction dredging methods, it is right to look to the suction dredge community for help locating hotspots and removing mercury from the river systems. In my opinion the data provided in the report by Humphrey's (2005) did not demonstrate any clear conclusions that would prohibit the State from allowing this activity. On the contrary, in the discussion of results it was stated that a suction dredge in the American River was able to collect 98 percent of the measured mercury processed through the dredge. The amount of mercury collected may have been higher if the investigators had been using a dredge with the modern jet flare design. Even 98 percent is a huge plus for the environment and it would be irresponsible to not allow mercury to be removed from the rivers and streams whenever it is found.

In Humphreys report (2005), the author expressed concern for the loss of a small portion (2%) of the mercury from the back end of the sluice box. In the conclusions it was stated that the amount lost constituted a concentration more than ten times higher than that needed to classify it as hazardous waste. Yet 98 percent of the mercury was now secured and the process did not add any mercury to the system that was not already present. The small fraction lost, because of its density, would relocate back onto the river floor buried in the sediment close to where it was removed while dredging.

Mercury is continuously moved every winter in high storm events. Since the cessation of hydraulic mining, accumulated sediment from hydraulic placer mining has been transported to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay by sustained remobilization (James, 1991). Providing a program to collect mercury from miners would aid the Water Board’s mission of reducing mercury contamination in the deltas and bays where mercury methylation is a large concern.

In the test described by Humphreys (2005) a small portion of floured mercury was collected in the sediments as it escaped the sluice box. This mercury whether floured before it entered the sluice box, or not, would still be in elemental form. Regardless of surface area it would be no more toxic then the other 98 percent that was suggested to be left in place.

Aside from grossly polluted environments, mercury is normally a problem only where the rate of natural formation of methyl mercury from inorganic mercury is greater than the reverse reaction. Methyl mercury is the only form of mercury that accumulates appreciably in macroinvertebrates and fish. Environments that are known to favor the production of methyl mercury include certain types of wetlands, dilute low-pH lakes in the Northeast and North central United States, parts of the Florida Everglades, newly flooded reservoirs, and coastal wetlands, particularly along the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and San Francisco Bay (USGS 2000).

If not collected the mercury is guaranteed to end up farther down stream, and eventually in the delta or the bay, where methylation is a real environmental problem. In my opinion it would be a highly irresponsible management practice to leave a large portion of mercury in the rivers and streams because of unrealistic concerns for the lesser amount moving only a short distance away from an operating dredge. Most likely if floured the movement of fine mercury would extend no farther than 50-feet off the end of the sluice box. That would relate to the distance a turbidity plume might extend downstream from a small-scale suction dredge.

However, if the mercury was left in place the next storm event would surely move it downstream closer to, and eventually into, the bay and delta. In fact, according to Humphrey's study in 2005 mercury was seen moving down stream and re-deposited on bedrock already dredge cleaned. The important fact here is mercury was flowing down stream in a suction dredge free zone during lower river flows than what take place under high winter river conditions.

It is most important to reduce the total amount of mercury in the streams and rivers and its transport downstream into the bays and deltas. This is defined as a part of Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) goals.

We know for certain that mercury is transported downstream throughout the winter season during high water events. Therefore, anytime there is the possibility for the removal of mercury by miners it should be undertaken and supported.

You justifiably vetoed that last bill because it was unnecessary and suction dredge mining is already regulated by the Department of Fish and Game. But here we are again….

There was no reason, last year, to sign AB1032 into law and there is no reason to sign Bill 670 into law this year. I respectfully ask that you not add further to the problems related to increased government regulation where none is warranted. Please allow California Fish and Game to do their job. They are already regulating suction dredging adequately to protect fish. The court has ordered California Department of Fish and Game to prove suction dredging creates significant harm before changing the mining regulations.

I respectfully ask that you VETO bill 670.

Sincerely,

Claudia Wise

34519 Riverside Dr SW

Albany, Oregon 97321

541-990-7009

REFERENCES

Cooley, 1995, USFS. Siskiyou National Forest Service Yardage Estimate, A comparison of stream materials moved by mining suction dredge operations to the natural sediment yield rates. In house Report.

Environment News Service (ENS). 2007. Miners Remove Gold Rush Mercury from Washington Streams.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2007/2007-09-18-096.asp

Grove, Schuyler and M. Magneson. 2006. USFWS. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Survey.

Humphreys, R., 2005, Losses and Recovery During a Suction Dredge Test in the South Fork of the American River. Staff Report, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality.

James, A.L., 1991, Incision and morphologic evolution of an alluvial channel recovering from hydraulic mining sediment: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 103, p. 723–736.

Quihillalt, Rick R and J. D. Glase., 1999. USFWS. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Mainstem Trinity River Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Redd Survey, 1996 through 1998. In house Report.

USEPA, 2001. Mercury Recovery from Recreational Gold Miners.

http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/innovations/merrec.html

USGS, 2000. Mercury in the Environment, USGS Fact Sheet 146-00 (October 2000) Environments Where Methyl mercury is a Problem.